Nothing Is Unbelievable Anymore.
News1 min ago
Evolution Of One Species To Another
On R&S threads, Theland often states that while evolution most definitely occurs *within* a species, (eg. Darwins finches) there is no evidence that one species has ever evolved into another. Im no scientist, (much less an evolutionary biologist) but I can see what he's saying.
Ive recently been viewing some You Tube vids from evolutionists debunking creationism....and for balance, creationists debunking evolution.... but nowhere can I find anything to suggest that there is any fossil record of one species turning into another.
Can anyone help me out here?
Thanks.
Ive recently been viewing some You Tube vids from evolutionists debunking creationism....and for balance, creationists debunking evolution.... but nowhere can I find anything to suggest that there is any fossil record of one species turning into another.
Can anyone help me out here?
Thanks.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jim, I really respect you as AB's scientist. And I know that subjects like this can't be covered in a single 'soundbite' but can you please explain to me how a fish (a few million years ago) decided that it would be a good idea to suck up a few mouthfuls of air and from there on in its decendents decided the same until they became amphibians?
I really don't get it. I didn't get it in school and I really don't get it now...40 yrs later.
I really don't get it. I didn't get it in school and I really don't get it now...40 yrs later.
Can anyone name any species which is still actually evolving? It appears to me that everything is pretty much complete! There seems to be little evidence of all the "in between" species needed to prop up the evolutionary theory. Just looking at the human body, if you support the theory that we all evolved from some sort of protoplasm or cell, what would you say evolved first- the heart, blood, or lungs? There is of course, no answer to this question, as it would be impossible.
"...can you please explain to me how a fish (a few million years ago) decided that it would be a good idea to suck up a few mouthfuls of air..."
Well, I mean, part of the problem -- which is not, I hasten to add, at all your fault -- is that there isn't really a moment where such-and-such an animal "decides" to do anything in terms of evolution. It's an unconscious process driven by natural pressures.
So, for example, the fish you mention might have been struggling to compete for food in the oceans. If, however, it was capable of just about surviving for a little while without breathing through gills, then it might have found the relatively empty lands a beautifully rich source of food, with very little competition. So any animals with that lucky "I can breathe air" modification would do rather well, have lots of food, lots of energy to make babies, better chances to avoid predators, etc etc.
I suppose this means that basically the answer to your question is that things happen in reverse:
1. Animals develop modifications, because of random mutations in DNA, etc.
2. These mutations turn out to be useful, because they make it easier for the animal to survive in their environment.
3. Animals that live longer have more babies.
4. Those babies are likely to have the same features.
5. That modification gets reinforced through the generations.
And, voila, after a few hundred thousand years, maybe you end up with a new species. Sometimes it's a small change, other times it's quite a big one. But the change happens before it's discovered whether it's useful or not.
Hope that makes a bit more sense. I'll have another go altogether.
Well, I mean, part of the problem -- which is not, I hasten to add, at all your fault -- is that there isn't really a moment where such-and-such an animal "decides" to do anything in terms of evolution. It's an unconscious process driven by natural pressures.
So, for example, the fish you mention might have been struggling to compete for food in the oceans. If, however, it was capable of just about surviving for a little while without breathing through gills, then it might have found the relatively empty lands a beautifully rich source of food, with very little competition. So any animals with that lucky "I can breathe air" modification would do rather well, have lots of food, lots of energy to make babies, better chances to avoid predators, etc etc.
I suppose this means that basically the answer to your question is that things happen in reverse:
1. Animals develop modifications, because of random mutations in DNA, etc.
2. These mutations turn out to be useful, because they make it easier for the animal to survive in their environment.
3. Animals that live longer have more babies.
4. Those babies are likely to have the same features.
5. That modification gets reinforced through the generations.
And, voila, after a few hundred thousand years, maybe you end up with a new species. Sometimes it's a small change, other times it's quite a big one. But the change happens before it's discovered whether it's useful or not.
Hope that makes a bit more sense. I'll have another go altogether.
I had no intention of ending that last post with "altogether" -- was watching a programme just now and that work came out as I was typing and I just mindlessly added it. Meant "later, if necessary".
Evolution as a process never stops, spungle. It is, however, something that usually happens rather slower than over a human lifetime, so it's hard for us to observe it without relying on fossils.
Still, since at this point -- and in spite of what TheLand may say -- evolution is a well-established scientific truth, it's fairly safe to say that robins are still evolving without being able to provide a specific example of that.
If you want to see evolution happening on a more reasonable timescale for us to observe, then your best bet is to watch bacteria (eg MRSA, etc), or possibly fruit flies.
Evolution as a process never stops, spungle. It is, however, something that usually happens rather slower than over a human lifetime, so it's hard for us to observe it without relying on fossils.
Still, since at this point -- and in spite of what TheLand may say -- evolution is a well-established scientific truth, it's fairly safe to say that robins are still evolving without being able to provide a specific example of that.
If you want to see evolution happening on a more reasonable timescale for us to observe, then your best bet is to watch bacteria (eg MRSA, etc), or possibly fruit flies.
Fair enough, spungle, although if the process carries on long enough then [i]either:
1. the older version species (ie, the animals without the modification) will be entirely gone, and the newer species will have replaced it, or;
2. The newer version of the species will have diverged so much, perhaps because its population has moved to a separate area, so that lack of interaction with the "older" version of the species has allowed the two to diverge.
In both cases, a new species can be said to have emerged at some point. Good luck defining which generation that truly was, to be sure; but it will be pretty clear, for example, that we are no longer the same species as Homo erectus.
1. the older version species (ie, the animals without the modification) will be entirely gone, and the newer species will have replaced it, or;
2. The newer version of the species will have diverged so much, perhaps because its population has moved to a separate area, so that lack of interaction with the "older" version of the species has allowed the two to diverge.
In both cases, a new species can be said to have emerged at some point. Good luck defining which generation that truly was, to be sure; but it will be pretty clear, for example, that we are no longer the same species as Homo erectus.
" Can anyone name any species which is still actually evolving? "
How about this ?
https:/
Thanks for answering Jim. Your answer, is, however, wholly unscientific and unsatisfactory.
"Evolution as a process never stops, spungle." Within a species, yes. Between species, no. Unless you do have some evidence of it?
//It is, however, something that usually happens rather slower than over a human lifetime, so it's hard for us to observe it without relying on fossils.// Okay, so where are the fossils showing the supposed evolution "between" species of man, robins, dogs, or anything else for that matter?
//evolution is a well-established scientific truth// It can easily be proved WITHIN a species, but there's no proof we all descended (or ascended) from a single cell, or that evolution across a species is possible. That is why it is called the THEORY of evolution- it's an idea.
//it's fairly safe to say that robins are still evolving without being able to provide a specific example of that.// How so? You are claiming that everything is still evolving- surely it should be easy to ask for an example from a common garden bird?
//If you want to see evolution happening on a more reasonable timescale for us to observe, then your best bet is to watch bacteria (eg MRSA, etc), or possibly fruit flies.// I have studied the basic science, and fully agree that there is evolution within a species- I do not see anywhere though where anything is evolving across a species- if that theory were in any way true there would be millions of examples of all the "part-evolved" creatures necessary to support such a theory.
"Evolution as a process never stops, spungle." Within a species, yes. Between species, no. Unless you do have some evidence of it?
//It is, however, something that usually happens rather slower than over a human lifetime, so it's hard for us to observe it without relying on fossils.// Okay, so where are the fossils showing the supposed evolution "between" species of man, robins, dogs, or anything else for that matter?
//evolution is a well-established scientific truth// It can easily be proved WITHIN a species, but there's no proof we all descended (or ascended) from a single cell, or that evolution across a species is possible. That is why it is called the THEORY of evolution- it's an idea.
//it's fairly safe to say that robins are still evolving without being able to provide a specific example of that.// How so? You are claiming that everything is still evolving- surely it should be easy to ask for an example from a common garden bird?
//If you want to see evolution happening on a more reasonable timescale for us to observe, then your best bet is to watch bacteria (eg MRSA, etc), or possibly fruit flies.// I have studied the basic science, and fully agree that there is evolution within a species- I do not see anywhere though where anything is evolving across a species- if that theory were in any way true there would be millions of examples of all the "part-evolved" creatures necessary to support such a theory.
